In re B.R.
196 Vt. 304
| Vt. | 2014Background
- B.R., born Nov. 2012, became subject to a DCF CHINS petition and emergency care order in March 2013 after allegations of parental illicit drug use and related endangerment.
- Mother stipulated at the merits hearing that she was unable to adequately care for B.R. due to long-term substance abuse and failure to engage in services; father did not stipulate and contested the petition.
- The court excluded as hearsay trooper testimony recounting mother’s statements implicating father and excluded some proffered evidence; after a brief recess the State reopened and offered DCF social-worker testimony about parents’ living situation and a safety plan.
- The trial court found B.R. had been living with both parents, accepted mother’s stipulation as establishing that B.R. was without proper parental care, adjudicated B.R. CHINS, and proceeded to disposition.
- Father appealed, arguing insufficient evidence to adjudicate CHINS as to the child (and that the court impermissibly relied on a presumption or mother’s stipulation to the detriment of father).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to adjudicate B.R. CHINS when only one parent stipulated | Mother’s admission that her long-term substance abuse impacted the child established child lacked proper parental care and supported CHINS adjudication | One parent’s admitted substance abuse is not enough; State must prove child lacked proper parental care considering father’s role; reliance on a presumption is constitutionally infirm | Court affirmed: child-focused inquiry permits CHINS adjudication when allegations are established as to one parent and the child’s welfare is at risk; mother’s admission supported finding that B.R. lacked proper parental care |
| Whether mother’s stipulation bound father or relieved State of proving CHINS against him | Stipulation to merits as to mother establishes facts showing child lacked proper care and justifies proceeding to disposition; father’s fitness can be addressed at disposition | Mother’s stipulation cannot waive father’s right to have the State prove CHINS; stipulations are not evidence against nonconsenting parties | Court: Mother’s stipulation and incremental admissible testimony were sufficient to establish CHINS for the child; father’s interests addressed at disposition; court did not treat stipulation as a blanket presumption binding father |
| Admissibility and sufficiency of testimony about child’s whereabouts and parental living arrangements | DCF social worker’s testimony about family residence and safety plan was admissible and supported finding child lived with both parents | Social worker lacked recent house visits; testimony about earlier statements and out-of-court assertions was hearsay and insufficient | Court found the social worker’s testimony admissible and that reasonable inferences supported that B.R. lived with parents leading up to filing; precise location at filing unnecessary |
| Relief requested by father (immediate custody to father if CHINS upheld without showing child lacks proper parental care) | N/A (focus on adjudication and subsequent disposition) | If CHINS finding can stand without showing lack of care, then statute requires return to father | Court rejected this procedural reading; disposition (including custody and parental fitness) is for disposition stage, not merits; no immediate custody transfer required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.P., 193 Vt. 29, 71 A.3d 1142 (Vt. 2012) (CHINS focus is child welfare; court may adjudicate CHINS where allegations are established as to one parent)
- In re N.H., 135 Vt. 230, 373 A.2d 851 (Vt. 1977) (court may assume jurisdiction and find child abused/without parental care even where noncustodial parent was blameless)
- In re F.P., 164 Vt. 117, 665 A.2d 597 (Vt. 1995) (CHINS adjudication and retention of jurisdiction appropriate when allegations established as to one parent and child lacks proper parental care)
- In re M.L., 187 Vt. 291, 993 A.2d 400 (Vt. 2010) (preponderance standard balances child safety and parental integrity in CHINS proceedings)
- In re L.M., 195 Vt. 637, 93 A.3d 553 (Vt. 2014) (trial court may draw on common sense and reasonable inferences when assessing child’s circumstances)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (constitutional protection of parental fitness and need for hearing before removing custody)